You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!

Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.

Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.

Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide

This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.

Or until somebody forces a new package management system on everybody else, by making everything dependent on it? Like what's happening with a software called <self-censored>. Wait, I can already hear the grisly «Software Center» marketing buzzword threatening the community. NOOOOOOooooo....

I have always thought that what makes the Linux ecosystem really interesting is its inherent diversity, not the attempts to turn it into a monoculture.

LOL, you know that is probably sitting on someones desk or "brainstorming session" already. Oh wait, ssssssd will manage packages for you automatically, behind the scenes from trusted repos, trust us, packagers are redundant and they can't install packages parallel, what is this single install at a time nonsense.

Just wondering: are these the same people who praise Slackware for its genuine and powerful albeit simple package management without automatic dependencies resolution and this notwithstanding reinvent a new package manager with automatic dependencies resolution every month?

As far as I'm concerned I'm just sitting on the fence. In fact the only automation I allow when managing packages is the one offered by slackpkg, but I often rely on the more basic *pkg tools. On the other hand, I don't mind others playing with things either, or even reinventing the wheel, if that's what they really want to do. As long as I'm not forced to adopt the result.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu

LOL, you know that is probably sitting on someones desk or "brainstorming session" already. Oh wait, ssssssd will manage packages for you automatically, behind the scenes from trusted repos, trust us, packagers are redundant and they can't install packages parallel, what is this single install at a time nonsense.

«And this gospel of the grand unified package management system shall be preached in the whole world. And there will be weeping and hissing and gnashing of teeth.»

IMHO ... Package managers are at the mercy of the distribution it seems... until the linux community comes to an agreeable consensus, we are stuck with a lots of different ways to install packages. I dream of a day when a standard comes out of all of this...

I think everyone is in agreement that the defacto standard is either .rpm or .deb.

Meaning that every distro attempting at "serious" has to ship with tools able to parse those two?

Slackware includes rpm utilities, and I know it can handle deb archives using ar p and piping the the data or control tarballs to an extracting utility to get the package contents or information. I'm not sure if there's a more specific deb package handler or if ar is the industry standard.

Last edited by bassmadrigal; 10-17-2017 at 02:13 AM.
Reason: Fixed flag for ar, since it uses just the letter (p) and not the dash letter (-p)

I think everyone is in agreement that the defacto standard is either .rpm or .deb.

Sorry to post this but this sentence lacks of basic logic. I have no idea who are those "everyone"(s)? I understand that these systems are used widely first of all because there are many derivatives of Debian and RH. But does not make them "standard"(s). There is also possibility that this is very authoritative expression of poster opinion: implicitly there is "should be", I mean "everyone should be [...]".

Sorry to post this but this sentence lacks of basic logic. I have no idea who are those "everyone"(s)? I understand that these systems are used widely first of all because there are many derivatives of Debian and RH. But does not make them "standard"(s). There is also possibility that this is very authoritative expression of poster opinion: implicitly there is "should be", I mean "everyone should be [...]".

Do you not know who "volkerdi" is, and his panache dry humor? But seriously .rpm and .deb are the defacto standards, until flatpack, snap, appimage etc... take over the packaging world.